Comments on: Muslim creationism is back in the news, this time in Egypthttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/
Religion, faith and ethicsFri, 31 Jul 2015 20:47:14 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.3By: Scroobyhttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3/#comment-23443
Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:39:01 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9629#comment-23443Despite years of effort on the part of the scientific community, creationism will not go away not because the evidence for God and creationism is based on flawed thinking, but because the views on abiogenesis, the evidence for evolution from one species to another, and for spontaneous, random existence without the requirement for the external hand of God has now been roundly demolished. God is real. And evolution is science’s greatest ‘mistake’.

Google me on the subject, if you doubt it. I’ve written extensively on the matter and you are welcome to challenge any particular.

But there was a good reason for this ‘mistake’, and only now are we able to reveal why this ‘mistake’ was inevitable. I’ve called it ‘the attempted murder of God’, a title that quite provocatively suggests a deliberate project to underwrite the current confusion in the debate. Hence, ‘mistake’ is in inverted commas, since there is no real mistake, and everything we ever thought we knew about the subject was always going to be questioned, because we were never presented with the whole picture.

Until now.

That picture has changed in 2010… The paradigm has shifted once again… And the ‘hidden’ science’ we are all surely entitled to know can now be revealed.

Best Regards,
Scrooby

]]>By: Tibihttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3/#comment-22655
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:59:03 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9629#comment-22655Vista, the theory of evolution does not claim to apply to everything. Rocks do not evolve. Metal knives don’t evolve. Keyboards also don’t. The things that evolve are large groups of systems that are able to copy themselves, where the copying mechanism is susceptible to some level of error, and where the systems compete for limited resources, and die if they cannot collect enough for themselves. Does any of these requirements apply to keyboards? They do apply to bacteria, plants, animals etc. Evolution explains how bacteria evolved into the rich life we see on Earth today.We see animals mating and multiplying–maybe you yourself never witnessed that, but it has been observed by many people, starting from all mothers in the world (including yours). For keyboards, such copying has never been observed. Not by a single person. Can you notice the difference now?Also, scientists aren’t stupid. If they saw a machine manufacturing medicine, they would analyze the machine and check who made it. They have done this for nature. They saw living beings create other living beings. They asked who created the parents. They got the answer: their parents. Scientists followed this trail millions of years back in time, and never found a different answer than just “parents”. This is why the theory of evolution has not been invalidated. There never has been any indication that an external entity was involved. It must, then, be that living beings “figured it” all out by themselves. Scientists provided a framework within which this does happen very naturally; it is called evolution. Again, if you have any trouble understanding that evolution happens, please realize that it is being observed in the lab every single day by thousands of biologists. Denying it is like denying that computers exist. The only questions that are still open are about the details of how evolution works, not whether it happens or not.Another difference between keyboards and organisms is one of probability of mutations. Carbon-based compounds are observed to be likely to interact with other such compounds, and also are easily decomposed if subjected e.g. to temperatures a little higher than room temperature. Such reactions are immensely less likely to occur for plastics and silicon, which are some of the main materials that make up your keyboard. That’s why you should recycle, not just throw stuff in the trash: it will (almost) never decompose on its own! This is also why life is not made of plastic or metal or other stable compounds. Alcohol for example visibly reacts with fatty acids, but put a keyboard next to a computer, and wait until one of them changes shape!If you want to talk about evolution, you need to satisfy the basic requirements for evolution to happen. You need to have a large number of systems each of which is capable of copying itself. The copying process must have some probability of error. Next, these systems must compete for limited resources, and must be allowed to die if they can’t collect enough resources. Then you need to wait for a long time. Such simulations have been done on a computer, and the results do indeed show evolution. You can find some examples on CDK007s channel on YouTubehttp://www.youtube.com/user/cdk00 7?blend=1&ob=4An older computer framework written to allow a bunch of small programs to compete for resources is Tierra,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier ra_%28computer_simulation%29you can try to look into that.Please learn about evolution before criticizing it. All of your “complaints” were strictly related to your not understanding the theory, not to actual flaws in it!
]]>By: Hahahttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3/#comment-22601
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:29:25 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9629#comment-22601Evolution doesn’t need to remove god from the equation.Last time I checked, religion has yet to prove that god is part of the equation to begin with.
]]>By: Vistahttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3/#comment-22585
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:12:02 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9629#comment-22585Tibi,What did you mean by mutation of keyboard in factory? I am afraid, did you mean if that… “mutated keyboards are not always thrown out”… then over the time typewriter manufacturing machine will once start to produce computer keyboard!!????!!!!!! Yes, you are right…..the theory of evolution is that absurd indeed.How did we come to know that computer keyboard needs a creator? Is it only because that “We can see people, we have records of people having lived on Earth for thousands of years now, and we have records of people designing and building keyboards.”???? Well, like many other people, I never went to any keyboard manufacturing factory and never saw people are producing keyboard in a factory…..what do you suggest for me? Should I belief that keyboards are evolutes by themselves? Or should I belief, though of having no records, that the keyboards are manufactured by people???? Neither manufactured nor reproduced by themselves, rather I would like to belief that keyboards are found in the computer accessories shops. Sounds silly??? That is the theory some people like to believe in, in the name of scientific one as they propose… “organisms aren’t seen to be created by anybody or anything, but rather they themselves reproduce, sexually or asexually.”… Or… “living organisms need no creator; rather, they copy themselves, from parents into offspring. There is also absolutely no evidence that a creator ever existed–we’ve never met such a creator, have no records of one, fossil or otherwise.”You can go to a pharmaceutical products manufacturing factory and will see how tableting machine is producing tablets automatically without the touch of human hands. In front of that tablet machine you can only see machine producing tablets, you will not find designer of the tablet, you need not to meet the manufacturer, you will find no fossils of manufacturer either. What your scientific study tells you then? Are the tablets produced by themselves? Machine produces tablets without requiring a manufacturer? Or Manufacturer set the machine to produce tablets automatically?All these examples including that one of straight-talk are flawed if you discuss on the basis of philosophy. But if you consider evolution as science these are very much relevant. Whenever we are talking about evolution we have to keep in mind, this is not the objective study of a topic of biology rather it’s a discussion related to matters which we see around, their behaviors. What is the difference between a living being and a running machine on the basis of science? Why some matters/substances (as you call them ‘living beings’) started to evolutes from one stage to another but others can not? You can’t differentiate some particular matters from others to favor your logic. Of course we have made divisions, like physics, chemistry, biology etc in the study of science. But these are not contradictory to each other, as long as you are working on scientific basis, they can not be. When you incorporate any philosophical idea into scientific study than it becomes problematic for one division of science to face another. This is the case with evolution theory. A philosophical dogma has long been well discussed in scientific style.
]]>By: Tibihttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3/#comment-22581
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:08:40 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9629#comment-22581Benny, it’s true that the fact of evolution does not invalidate the idea of a god, although it definitely dismisses the most literal interpretations of a number of “holy” texts.You are however wrong about the importance of evolution for atheists. First of all, there is so much evidence for evolution, that it is clearly true in some approximation, even if it turns out to not be absolutely right. But even if it did turn out to be completely wrong, that would just prompt scientists to find a better theory. There is no reason for alarm for atheists if one particular alternative to god would be proven false.It might be a catastrophe for a Christian to learn there is no God, but for a scientist to learn that a theory is false is just part of the job. If the theory is a well-established one, then the discovery of its falsehood is full of excitement and prospects for a lot of fruitful future work.
]]>By: Benny Acostahttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3/#comment-22552
Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:46:11 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9629#comment-22552Believing evolution does not negate the existence of the creator for those that know of the creator. No one tells a king how to rule. And no one tells God how to give, and or, develop life.If evolution is the vehicle of creation so what? To the one who understands that they are created beings evolution can either be true or not and it doesn’t matter. To those who deny the existence of a creator evolution is fiercely important. If it is proven wrong then they must acknowledge other possibilities. If it is proven correct. The spiritual person can accept it. And it does not remove God from the equation.
]]>By: Tibihttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3/#comment-22453
Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:53:09 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9629#comment-22453Straight Talk, your point is moot for a very simple reason. There are some fundamental differences between your keyboard example and the evolution of species. First of all, keyboards don’t have a copying mechanism like all living organisms. Instead, they are all created in factories. Also, the amount of “mutations” that occur when the factory builds keyboards is very small, and “mutated” keyboards are always thrown out. Moreover, there is no crossing over during reproduction because, well, there is NO reproduction (sexual or otherwise). So most of the basics ingredients of evolution aren’t there.Secondly, in the case of keyboards we know for a fact that a creator existed: it is us. We can see people, we have records of people having lived on Earth for thousands of years now, and we have records of people designing and building keyboards. This, combined with the obvious lack of mutation in keyboards, is what makes the idea of typewriters evolving into computer keyboards sound ridiculous.Evolution is very different in many ways. First of all, organisms aren’t seen to be created by anybody or anything, but rather they themselves reproduce, sexually or asexually. During this reproduction, mutations happen, as can be seen nowadays either by analyzing the genetic code directly, or by the increased resistance to drugs of bacteria, viruses etc. Crossing over of genes has been observed scientifically since the time of Mendel (1850s), and is the reason for which we have grapes selected for their flavor, dogs selected for their looks, and fruit flies selected for whatever reasons scientists have. Detailed computer simulations show that it is reasonable for complex organs such as the eye to naturally develop through evolution in long enough periods of time–compatible with the periods of time observed for such evolution in the fossil record. Observe moreover that nowadays, living organisms need no creator; rather, they copy themselves, from parents into offspring. There is also absolutely no evidence that a creator ever existed–we’ve never met such a creator, have no records of one, fossil or otherwise. These are some of the reasons for which your analogy is completely flawed, and why scientists accept evolution as a fact.By the way, what was your point? That all biologists are just stupid and ignore obvious evidence against their theory? Isn’t that a bit arrogant of you?…
]]>By: Eden and Applehttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3/#comment-22272
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:56:45 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9629#comment-22272I appear to think therefore i accuse then JUDGE like an idiot Would,,,, i think some one said that or was it I appear to be human or Not to BE that is the Answer,
]]>By: Eden and Applehttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3/#comment-22271
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:46:35 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9629#comment-22271Exibit,, Fish in sea,( of GOD ) Birds in air,( of God ) Stars in Firmament,( of God ) WORD,( of God ) Apearance of Thinking, ( of GOD ) Fishers of Man chuckle of JESUS. Conceptional matters tehe
]]>By: The Dark Knighthttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/16/muslim-creationism-is-back-in-the-news-this-time-in-egypt/comment-page-3/#comment-22255
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:48:10 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9629#comment-22255Religion is like say my imaginary friend is better that your imaginary friend. The work of Darwin and many other people in the fileds of science work on facts.All religions work from a text which are thoughts and views of the writer at the time. These thoughts are then told to the masses and a view point or “religion” is born….not on facts. No religion known to man can prove anything but science can. Im sure if they find some life on another planets people will turn to religion to prove a view point which they cannot. science and the understanding of life and how we progress should be the new religion
]]>